Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        2011 (9) TMI 1148 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court approves set-off amount under Rule 154, emphasizes statutory compliance in winding-up proceedings. The Court approved the set-off amount of Rs. 5,47,28,34,538/- as computed by the Official Liquidator and Chartered Accountants, adhering to Rule 154 of ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Court approves set-off amount under Rule 154, emphasizes statutory compliance in winding-up proceedings.

                            The Court approved the set-off amount of Rs. 5,47,28,34,538/- as computed by the Official Liquidator and Chartered Accountants, adhering to Rule 154 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The request for condonation of the delay in communication was also granted. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory rules and procedures in winding-up proceedings and set-off calculations.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Approval of set-off amount.
                            2. Condonation of delay in communicating the set-off amount.

                            Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Approval of Set-Off Amount:
                            The Official Liquidator sought approval for a set-off amount of Rs. 5,47,28,34,538/- as computed under Rule 154 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. The company in liquidation had borrowed money from ICICI Bank, which was a secured creditor and debenture trustee. The Court decreed the debenture trustees' claim in the sum of Rs. 6,85,82,98,695/-. The properties of the company were sold to Metropolitan Infrahousing Ltd. for Rs. 6,01,00,00,000/- and Rs. 1,25,01,00,000/-, respectively. The Official Liquidator appointed S.M. Pradhan & Co., Chartered Accountants, to calculate the set-off amount. They reported that the principal amount of non-convertible debentures issued by the company was Rs. 1,36,79,22,640/- and the interest up to the winding-up date amounted to Rs. 4,35,14,15,366/-, totaling Rs. 5,71,93,38,006/-. Metropolitan held 95.69% of these debentures, equating to Rs. 5,47,28,34,538/-. The Chartered Accountants also noted that Metropolitan claimed interest up to February 2011, amounting to Rs. 12,83,85,44,059/-, inclusive of compounded interest. However, the Official Liquidator argued that under Rule 154, claims should be considered only up to the winding-up date, i.e., 26th September 2005.

                            Metropolitan contended that the full set-off amount as per the decree should be awarded, as the decree was passed after the winding-up order with the liquidator as a party. They argued that Rule 156, which limits interest to 4%, was inapplicable as the interest was part of the agreement and decreed. The Official Liquidator, however, maintained that the Rules did not permit granting interest beyond the stipulated rate and relied on Rule 154 and the judgment in IDBI Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator.

                            The Court noted that Rule 154 requires the value of debts and claims to be estimated as of the winding-up order date. Rule 156 allows creditors to prove for interest at a rate not exceeding 4% per annum up to the winding-up date if interest is not reserved or agreed upon. Rule 179 deals with subsequent interest, stating that creditors whose proofs have been admitted shall be paid interest from the winding-up order date to the final dividend declaration date at a rate not exceeding 4%.

                            The Court held that the liquidator's computation of the set-off amount was correct, as it adhered to the Rules. The liquidator could not grant full set-off as claimed by Metropolitan, as the computation had to be in terms of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The Court also noted that Metropolitan's claim for set-off was based on their successful bid for the company's property and that the Rules should not be held inapplicable merely because Metropolitan was the auction purchaser.

                            2. Condonation of Delay:
                            The Official Liquidator requested condonation of the delay in communicating the set-off amount to the Court Receiver, citing a one-month delay. The Court acknowledged the delay but did not find it to be a significant issue affecting the overall proceedings.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Court approved the set-off amount of Rs. 5,47,28,34,538/- as computed by the Official Liquidator and Chartered Accountants, adhering to Rule 154 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The request for condonation of the delay in communication was also granted. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory rules and procedures in winding-up proceedings and set-off calculations.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found